I agree, in that I predict that the effect would be lessened for experts and lessened still more for superforecasters.
However, that doesn’t tell us how much less. A six order of magnitude discrepancy leaves a lot of room! If switching to odds only dropped superforecasters by three orders of magnitude and experts by four orders of magnitude, everything you said above would be true, but it would still make a massive difference to risk estimates. The people in EA may already have a (P|Doom) before going in, but everyone else won’t. Being an AI expert does not make one immune to anchoring bias.
I think it’s very important to follow up on this for domain experts. I often see “median AI expert thinks thinks there is 2% chance AI x-risk” used as evidence to take AI risk seriously, but is there an alternate universe where the factoid is “median AI expert thinks there is 1 in 50,000 odds of AI x-risk” ? We really need to find out.
I agree, in that I predict that the effect would be lessened for experts and lessened still more for superforecasters.
However, that doesn’t tell us how much less. A six order of magnitude discrepancy leaves a lot of room! If switching to odds only dropped superforecasters by three orders of magnitude and experts by four orders of magnitude, everything you said above would be true, but it would still make a massive difference to risk estimates. The people in EA may already have a (P|Doom) before going in, but everyone else won’t. Being an AI expert does not make one immune to anchoring bias.
I think it’s very important to follow up on this for domain experts. I often see “median AI expert thinks thinks there is 2% chance AI x-risk” used as evidence to take AI risk seriously, but is there an alternate universe where the factoid is “median AI expert thinks there is 1 in 50,000 odds of AI x-risk” ? We really need to find out.